Association for Behavior Analysis International

Effective communication is a common goal of instruction with children with autism as the developmental disability itself is characterized by significant deficits in communication (APA, 2000). Therefore, much research has been conducted to determine the most effective strategies of instruction to target this deficit. This symposium addresses two common areas lacking in the research literature: assessment of communication modality for a particular learner, and transferring stimulus control of manding to naturally occurring stimuli. Two papers will address determining the most appropriate communication modality (vocal speech, sign language, Picture Exchange Communication System, or a speech output device) for individual learners by assessing acquisition and preference across the different modalities. This type of modality assessment was conducted across learners at three different sites and data will be presented on acquisition of and preference for the various modalities. The third paper will address the topic of transferring stimulus control of mands to naturally occurring discriminative stimuli.

Deficits in communication are displayed by individuals with Autism, and many other intellectual disabilities (APA, 2000). Therefore, in the field of special education, many families, clinicians, teachers, and speech pathologists are faced with the task of providing effective methods of communication since many individuals with autism do not communicate vocally (Frankel, Leary, and Kilman, 1987). Previous research has demonstrated the effectiveness of many types of communication modalities and augmentative or alternative communication devices such as speech (Carr & Durand, 1985), sign language (Mirenda, 2003), Picture Exchange Communication System (Bondy & Frost, 1994), or speech output devices. While research has shown each to be effective, there is a lack of research in determing how to choose a specific modality for an individual learner. Decisions about which type of modality is appropriate for a particular learner are often left to clinician preference, or philosophical groundings of an agency. The current study seeks to expand on recent research (Hansford, et al, 2011) to use systematic assessment techniques to determine the most appropriate communication modality for a particular learn based on rates of acquisition and preference.

Autism is a developmental disability characterized by difficulties in communication, social interaction, and the presence of restricted and repetitive behaviors (APA, 2000). Looking at the communication domain, individuals with autism have significant impairments in their ability to communicate wants and needs, as well as using verbal and nonverbal language to navigate social situations. Further, estimates indicate that about fifty percent of children with autism are entirely nonvocal (Frankel, Leary & Kilman, 1987). To address these deficits, several supplemental/ alternative communication strategies have been developed. Different topographies of trained communication responses have included vocal speech (Carr & Durand, 1985), communication cards/ picture exchange (Bondy & Frost, 1994; Horner & Day, 1991), and sign language (Mirenda, 2003). While these communication modalities have all been shown to be effective in specific clinical instances, the selection of communication modality for individual learners has generally been based on subjective guidelines, such as the learners developmental level, motor skills, and the recommendations of a speech-language pathologist. This is particularly problematic as the selection of communication modality for learners with autism can be a contentious issue. Parents often fear that vocal ability will be diminished by the provision of an alternative strategy, and many also fear that other modalities will not generalize outside of school settings. Disagreements among parents and professionals can delay the intervention process and adversely affect individuals in need of intervention. To this point, relatively little research has evaluated procedures to determine which modality represents a "best fit" with individual learning styles. The current study explores an individualized assessment for informing communication modality selections, specifically looking at rates of acquisition and preference within individual learners with autism.

Several studies have demonstrated the effects of teaching multiply controlled mands and transferring control of those mands to the establishing operation (EO; e.g. Charlop, Schreibman, & Thibodeau, 1985; Guiterrez, Vollmer, Dozier, Borrero, Rapp, Bourret, & Gadaire, 2007). Teaching appropriate environmental controls over mands may be an alternative to teaching "spontaneous" or "pure" mands, only under control of the EO. In the current study,a rolling tine delay (RTD) procedure (Sweeney-Kerwin, Carbone, O'Brien, Zecchin, & Janecky, 2007) was used to transfer control of mand responses from an intraverbal prompt in the presence of the item (tact) to a more naturally occurring discriminative stimulus in the natural environment. Results indicated that the RTD procedure successfully increased mands in the presence of the naturally occurring discriminative stimulus. However, a mand test suggested that responses continued to occur in the absence of the EO, and may have functioned as tacts for two of the three participants.